Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Twilight Hue]

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

Let’s take a look at a traditional (NIV) and the Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) paying special attention to verse 33:

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” NIV​

OR:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT​

We’ll proceed with the “a god” translation as if it were correct, just to see how much mileage we get. Unfortunately this crashes us head first into our first dilemma.

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

View attachment 41469

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/john/10/#v43010033

In effect, both JW.ORG and the NWT are giving backhand support for the Trinitarian translation that the crowd was about to stone Jesus for calling himself Jehovah, and not for simply referring to himself as “a god”.


Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.


Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Yet the biblical and historical record is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no record of Jews stoning their judges, magistrates, or other “powerful people” simply for considering themselves “gods”.

So where’s the evidence?


Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all! The reason for this will become clear.

Let go back to the Watchtower’s biblical scenario:

The mob is about to stone Jesus for blasphemy…calling himself “a god” according to the WT translation. They have rocks in hand, and they're itching to fly. But Jesus, having grabbed the crowd’s undivided attention does something curious. He quotes Psalm 82:6:

I have said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fail.” Psalm 82:6-7.​

The last thing you want to do with a stone wielding crowd is compare yourself to Israel’s judges of old. Why? Because the judges of old were condemned by Jehovah God! In other words, Jesus is saying “The judges of old were “sons of God”, I am the son of God, the judges of old were “gods” and I just told you I was “a god”, the judges of old were condemned by God…so what on earth is taking you so long to condemn me?”

If that doesn’t get a rock hurtling by your ear, I don’t know what would, and therein lays the Watchtower’s dilemma. They simply can’t have Jesus comparing himself to the corrupt judges of Israel by declaring he’s “a god” at John 10:33, and they certainly can’t have the crowd thinking that Jesus had just declared himself “God”.

But our clever “truth finding” friends at the Watchtower have a solution. A “twofer” they gleaned straight out of the text. Not only does Jesus deny he’s God at John 10:33, he also denies he’s “a god”! :

· 66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”

- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567​

source: Prehuman Existence — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (see paragraph 66)

How the WT got Jesus to deny being God and/or “a god” at John 10:33 is baffling, but I suppose if you’re a Jehovah Witness it’s all there right there, embedded somewhere in the text.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

I always thought Jehovah Witnesses regard Jesus as the archangel Michael.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

My goodness! You have no idea how much I’d love to get into that. From my POV, JW’s are just as “blood-guilty”.

Yeah, really? As much as me? From your POV, “JW’s are just as blood-guilty”? I didn’t post my POV.....I posted documented evidence from objective sources, not biased. And got lots more.
So I’m ready!

But that would get us away from thread theme

uh-huh. If you do start another, remember: unbiased and objective!

 

[Deeje]

I always thought Jehovah Witnesses regard Jesus as the archangel Michael.

We believe that in his heavenly position that Jesus (a name he was called only as a human) was called Michael. There are a couple of reasons for this....firstly there are only two who are said to command the angelic forces....Jesus and Michael.

And Michael is called "the great Prince" who stands on behalf of God's people.
The Messiah was prophesied to be called "the Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6) A Prince is the son of a King.....the Universal King is Jehovah.

We would add that this is a belief rather than a doctrine because scripture is not definite or specific enough for it to be a doctrine. What we are sure about is that Jesus is not Almighty God.

It can be noted that the trinity is a doctrine of the churches but there is no specific scripture that proves that it is true. That is the difference between us and Christendom.....we need more than adopted ideas from paganism to formulate our beliefs....we rely entirely on scripture.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We believe that in his heavenly position that Jesus (a name he was called only as a human) was called Michael. There are a couple of reasons for this....firstly there are only two who are said to command the angelic forces....Jesus and Michael.

And Michael is called "the great Prince" who stands on behalf of God's people.
The Messiah was prophesied to be called "the Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6) A Prince is the son of a King.....the Universal King is Jehovah.

We would add that this is a belief rather than a doctrine because scripture is not definite or specific enough for it to be a doctrine. What we are sure about is that Jesus is not Almighty God.

It can be noted that the trinity is a doctrine of the churches but there is no specific scripture that proves that it is true. That is the difference between us and Christendom.....we need more than adopted ideas from paganism to formulate our beliefs....we rely entirely on scripture.

The book of Revelation lets us know he is the Almighty. Revelation 1:8 calls the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, he which is, and which was, and which is to come - the Almighty.
Then Revelation 22:12-16 and Revelation 22:20 lets us know who that is.

And Colossians 2:8-10 says he is the head of all principality and power. That makes him the Almighty.

Acts 20:28 - feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (God is in the oldest Greek manuscripts)

When he returns he will show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality. So how can he not be the Almighty? 1 Timothy 6:14-16

 

[Deeje]

The book of Revelation lets us know he is the Almighty. Revelation 1:8 calls the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, he which is, and which was, and which is to come - the Almighty.
Then Revelation 22:12-16 and Revelation 22:20 lets us know who that is.

Revelation 21:6-7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Hebrews 2:11; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Galatians 3:26; 4:6)

At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17-18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Hebrews 3:1)

So we believe that the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

And Colossians 2:8-10 says he is the head of all principality and power. That makes him the Almighty.

The son has no authority that is not given to him by the Father.
(Matthew 28:18)

Acts 20:28 - feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (God is in the oldest Greek manuscripts)

Actually the phrasing in Greek is different to the way we would say it in English.

It literally says.......“προσέχετε Be you paying attention ἑαυτοῖς to selves καὶ and παντὶ to all τῷ the ποιμνίῳ, flock, ἐν in ᾧ which ὑμᾶς you τὸ the πνεῦμα spirit τὸ the ἅγιον holy ἔθετο put ἐπισκόπους, overseers, ποιμαίνειν to be shepherding τὴν the ἐκκλησίαν ecclesia τοῦ of the θεοῦ, God, ἣν which περιεποιήσατο he reserved for self διὰ through τοῦ the αἵματος blood τοῦ of the ἰδίου. own (one).”

“With the blood of his own (one)” implies the blood of one who belongs to God.

When he returns he will show who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who only hath immortality. So how can he not be the Almighty? 1 Timothy 6:14-16

This is another passage that is difficult to translate accurately.
ASV renders these verses....
“that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 which in its own times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen.”

Please notice verse16...it says that “no man has seen or can see” the immortal God. John 1:18 brings out the same fact.....if Jesus is God, then thousands of people saw him.

The trinity raises so many questions that have no real answers.....that is because the Bible does not teach a trinity....it never did. The Bible was not written with a trinitarian mindset in any of its writers. That mindset came with the foretold apostasy. It muddied the waters so badly that endless confusion about the true nature of God resulted...just as the sower of the weeds planned it.

 

[Oeste]

But at his Sanhedrin trial, recorded in all 4 Gospels, they never accused Jesus of saying or claiming he was God!!

So what you (& all trinitarians) think the Jews said or thought, is wrong!

Well that’s certainly the Arian premise, that Trinitarians are wrong, wrong, wrong. But there’s no need to bring this up because this thread is operating under the premise that Jesus is “a god” and not “God” remember?

They definitely would’ve used that against Him, at his trial!

Yes, according to the Arian/Watchtower viewpoint Jesus was not being tried for making himself “God” but for the very serious charge of making himself “a god”. Thus making oneself “a god” is a charge and crime punishable by the Sanhedrin.

This is further augmented by the crowd’s reaction at the Temple. Clearly they were about to stone Jesus for making himself “a god” and not for making himself “God”.

Thus…wait a minute! That doesn’t even sound right.

This is Israel, heavily Hellenized by the 1st century CE. They’re occupied by a foreign power, Rome, which is just as pagan as the Greeks. Why are they stoning Jesus if there are hundreds if not thousands of people, including Jews, who have made themselves or were considered “gods” by the Jew themselves?. Was Jesus one of hundreds the crowds had tried to stone that year?

Plus the Sanhedrin was one of the most powerful judicial bodies in Israel making members as “godlike” as any Jew around. So if Jesus is in danger of being stoned for making himself “a god” then members of the Sanhedrin undoubtedly faced the same charge of stoning as well. Is this correct, or was the attempted stoning simply a “Jesus only” moment?

Either way, it’s hard to get this “a god” thing to work. Seems like there’s a lot we have to not see, not hear, not think, not speak or else "slip under the rug".

It might help if an Arian and/or Witness could walk us through there “a god” theory of Jesus at John 10:33, perhaps with the NWT in hand.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And Colossians 2:8-10 says he is the head of all principality and power. That makes him the Almighty.

No. It was “given” him, Matthew 28:18

Isn’t that what he said?

 

[Dogknox20]

2 Peter 2:1 Tells us from within the church will come false teachers! "There will be False teachers AMONG YOU" * I point out "Arius was a Catholic" he was AMONG Catholics!
The PROPHESY in 2 Peter 2:1 can only work in one direction Arius was IN the Church, he rebelled against the Teachings of the Church! NOTE: The Church was NOT among Arius the prophesy can only work in the one direction, Arius was AMONG the Church! PROVING.... from this scripture prophesy; Arius the False teacher!
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.* They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius introduced Heresies he was condemned and removed from the body of Christ as a False teacher by Church Council! The heresy he taught was "Jesus is NOT God"! The Jehovah Witness have roots to the heresy of Arius! Wait this Prophesy from scripture continues... Verse 2

2 Peter 2:2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Clearly Arius the False Teacher brought truth into disfavor thus proving the Church he was AMONG and was removed from MUST be "The Way Of truth"!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

2 Peter 2:1 Tells us from within the church will come false teachers! "There will be False teachers AMONG YOU" * I point out "Arius was a Catholic" he was AMONG Catholics!
The PROPHESY in 2 Peter 2:1 can only work in one direction Arius was IN the Church, he rebelled against the Teachings of the Church! NOTE: The Church was NOT among Arius the prophesy can only work in the one direction, Arius was AMONG the Church! PROVING.... from this scripture prophesy; Arius the False teacher!
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.* They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius introduced Heresies he was condemned and removed from the body of Christ as a False teacher by Church Council! The heresy he taught was "Jesus is NOT God"! The Jehovah Witness have roots to the heresy of Arius! Wait this Prophesy from scripture continues... Verse 2

2 Peter 2:2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Clearly Arius the False Teacher brought truth into disfavor thus proving the Church he was AMONG and was removed from MUST be "The Way Of truth"!

“The Church” is way too blood-guilty, to have Christ’s favor! They’ve supported war, killing their own brothers!

 

[Brian2]

“The Church” is way too blood-guilty, to have Christ’s favor! They’ve supported war, killing their own brothers!

All claimants to the title of Christian have sinned and all groups who claim to be Christian have sinned.
This was expected by Jesus in the parable of the good seed and the bad seed. The weed will be removed at the end of the age.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No. It was “given” him, Matthew 28:18

Isn’t that what he said?

yes - After he was resurrected. The body was raised a glorified Spiritual body. And because he is the Almighty, he ascended and took the throne, and will reign forever.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Revelation 21:6-7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Hebrews 2:11; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Galatians 3:26; 4:6)

At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17-18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Hebrews 3:1)

So we believe that the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.



The son has no authority that is not given to him by the Father.
(Matthew 28:18)



Actually the phrasing in Greek is different to the way we would say it in English.

It literally says.......“προσέχετε Be you paying attention ἑαυτοῖς to selves καὶ and παντὶ to all τῷ the ποιμνίῳ, flock, ἐν in ᾧ which ὑμᾶς you τὸ the πνεῦμα spirit τὸ the ἅγιον holy ἔθετο put ἐπισκόπους, overseers, ποιμαίνειν to be shepherding τὴν the ἐκκλησίαν ecclesia τοῦ of the θεοῦ, God, ἣν which περιεποιήσατο he reserved for self διὰ through τοῦ the αἵματος blood τοῦ of the ἰδίου. own (one).”

“With the blood of his own (one)” implies the blood of one who belongs to God.



This is another passage that is difficult to translate accurately.
ASV renders these verses....
“that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 which in its own times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen.”

Please notice verse16...it says that “no man has seen or can see” the immortal God. John 1:18 brings out the same fact.....if Jesus is God, then thousands of people saw him.

The trinity raises so many questions that have no real answers.....that is because the Bible does not teach a trinity....it never did. The Bible was not written with a trinitarian mindset in any of its writers. That mindset came with the foretold apostasy. It muddied the waters so badly that endless confusion about the true nature of God resulted...just as the sower of the weeds planned it.

I am not a trinitarian. That seems to always be your canned response. Probably because the trinity is false and so easy to attack. But I have told you several times before I am not trinitarian. I believe in one God. That one God is a Spirit that wrapped himself in flesh, and shed his blood for the sins of man.

What you don't understand is the flesh is called the Son, and the eternal Spirit dwelling in that flesh is the Father. So you could say he was both the Father and the Son - or you could say he was both flesh and Spirit. (But that is not 2 different persons)

The Father didn't die - it was the flesh (called the Son) that died. The Father just took on a fleshly body and called it his Son. But the Father was dwelling in that body. It was still the Father who was manifest in the flesh. It was still his blood that was shed. After all it was the body he took on.

So he was the Almighty! Once he was crucified, he raised the body up a glorified permanent Spiritual body, ascended and took the throne to rule forever.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Revelation 21:6-7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Hebrews 2:11; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Galatians 3:26; 4:6)

At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17-18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Hebrews 3:1)

So we believe that the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.



The son has no authority that is not given to him by the Father.
(Matthew 28:18)



Actually the phrasing in Greek is different to the way we would say it in English.

It literally says.......“προσέχετε Be you paying attention ἑαυτοῖς to selves καὶ and παντὶ to all τῷ the ποιμνίῳ, flock, ἐν in ᾧ which ὑμᾶς you τὸ the πνεῦμα spirit τὸ the ἅγιον holy ἔθετο put ἐπισκόπους, overseers, ποιμαίνειν to be shepherding τὴν the ἐκκλησίαν ecclesia τοῦ of the θεοῦ, God, ἣν which περιεποιήσατο he reserved for self διὰ through τοῦ the αἵματος blood τοῦ of the ἰδίου. own (one).”

“With the blood of his own (one)” implies the blood of one who belongs to God.



This is another passage that is difficult to translate accurately.
ASV renders these verses....
“that thou keep the commandment, without spot, without reproach, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 which in its own times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only hath immortality, dwelling in light unapproachable; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power eternal. Amen.”

Please notice verse16...it says that “no man has seen or can see” the immortal God. John 1:18 brings out the same fact.....if Jesus is God, then thousands of people saw him.

The trinity raises so many questions that have no real answers.....that is because the Bible does not teach a trinity....it never did. The Bible was not written with a trinitarian mindset in any of its writers. That mindset came with the foretold apostasy. It muddied the waters so badly that endless confusion about the true nature of God resulted...just as the sower of the weeds planned it.

There can only be one who is the First and the Last - So he has to be the Almighty. As I said in post #52 - The problem is you aren't recognizing that the fleshly body was called the Son, while the Father is the eternal Spirit dwelling in that body. You think they are two different persons. But it was God who took on a fleshly body to be able to shed blood for man's sins. He called the body his Son. But God was still the one dwelling in that body. Once he shed his blood, he raised the body up a permanent glorified Spiritual body, ascended, and took the throne to reign forever.

 

[cataway]

ummm wow.................. that was different

 

[cataway]

Hebrews 10 :12 But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God,

it seems he sat down beside him self

 

[Oeste]

I always thought Jehovah Witnesses regard Jesus as the archangel Michael.

Good point @Twilight Hue

In Watchtower Christology, it's hard to understand exactly what happens to poor Michael once Jesus is born. From what I've learned from their literature, once Michael is sent by the Father he dies as an angel and is immediately reincarnated as a man.

re·in·car·na·tion
/ˌrēənkärˈnāSH(ə)n/

noun
noun: reincarnation
the rebirth of a soul in a new body.

Similar:
rebirth transmigration of the soul metempsychosis samsara transanimation

• a person or animal in whom a particular soul is believed to have been reborn.
  plural noun: reincarnations
  "he is said to be a reincarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu"
• a new version of something from the past.
  "the latest reincarnation of the hippie look"

However Jehovah Witnesses don't use the word "reincarnation" to describe whatever process they believe to have taken place. In fact the entire process of how Michael became Jesus is relatively muddled and left mostly to the readers imagination. Watchtower literature is silent on Michael's "process" of becoming Jesus. Instead it prefers to focus readers on Michael's identity instead.

Whether Michael the Archangel "ceases to exist" (dies?...if so how and by whom?), becomes "unconscious" or has his mind transferred into Mary's embryo (which raises questions as to his former heavenly/spirit body, and to his bona fides as to living as a man) any questions have, in my experience, garnered nothing but cool stares from Witnesses. They do not consider any such detailed questions "honest" so I tend to stay away from them. But I will bring it up when they bring up Michael.

On the other hand, any charge against the Trinity, no matter how ludicrous or flatly inaccurate is considered fair game. I don't mind as it keeps the conversation going but for the most part I've found it constitutes the vast majority of conversation they have.

As such they are at a total loss on how to harmonize their Christology with scripture once I've taken "Trinity" off the table as ably demonstrated by this thread. And to @TrueBeliever37 's frustration, Jehovah Witnesses appear unable or unprepared to deal with other non-Trinitarian Christologies.
​

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Hebrews 10 :12 But this man offered one sacrifice for sins for all time and sat down at the right hand of God,

it seems he sat down beside him self

First off, I would like you to notice that "hand" is not actually in the verse. It was added in by Trinitarian translators. Which makes it look like more than one. My question for you is, if that was what it meant - How can you sit on the right hand side of a Spirit which fills the heavens and the earth?

Once that body was resurrected - he was no longer in the weakened state he had subjected himself to. That body was changed into an eternal glorified spiritual body, and was given all power in heaven and in earth. Matthew 28:18 And he ascended to heaven and sat down in his right of the power of God.

Just like he said he would:
Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting in the right (hand is not there) of power... Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62
But from now on the Son of man will be seated in the right of the power of God. Luke 22:69

 

[cataway]

Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting in the right (hand is not there) of power... Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62
But from now on the Son of man will be seated in the right of the power of God. Luke 22:69

i see that you have taken on poetic license. i tired to find a bible that reads as you said Luke 22:69 reads ''seated in the right of the power of God.'' maybe you can help us out on that one please.

when Christ returned to heaven, he sat down because he had offered himself as the one sacrifice for sin forever. Jesus is seated in heaven. it means he is now in the place of supreme and highest honor in the universe. God has exalted him and given him a name that is above every name (Philippians 2:9-11).

 

[Hockeycowboy]

yes - After he was resurrected. The body was raised a glorified Spiritual body. And because he is the Almighty, he ascended and took the throne, and will reign forever.

If he was the Almighty, he wouldn't need anything to be "given" him. He would have had it from the beginning.

 

[cataway]

ya when i saw almighty used, me i said to i my self . someone does not know what almighty means